Post Reply  Post Thread 

A poor male is better off than a wealthy female, SJW "logic"

Author Message
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #1
A poor male is better off than a wealthy female, SJW "logic"

One of the dumbest things a privilege-filled faux feminist can say. Here's that "ism" that's against men (too). Capitalism, or should I say Neofeudalism.

https://twitter.com/1followernodad/statu...1504243712


Let humor trigger them all. Smile)




https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 06.12.2016 00:05 by Helsworth.

06.12.2016 00:03
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adder
Westwelt-Patriotin
**


Posts: 2,125
Words count: 573,433
Group: Premium
Joined: Aug2015
Status: Offline
Reputation: 50
Experience: 1342387
Glory Points: 160
Medals: 7

Post: #2
RE: A poor male is better off than a wealthy female, SJW "logic"

And once again I am deceived by your headline into thinking "well, maybe Helsworth does write now something I would like to read".

Of course, poor are less well off than wealthy. Yeah. Nice one, I guess we didn't know that, but I haven't ignored it.
Still: the "poor" in capitalist western societies are much more well off than the devastating poor in communist societies were and are. Guess what: we did know that too, but you tend to ignore it.
They are less well off than wealthy people in western societies, but at least on par with well-off people in communist societies. I - coming from a labourer family with my mom doing only uneducated jobs and my father not paying a dim to my education - am earning enough money to have a better life than 99% of all people in the (gladfully now dead) German Democratic Republic, or the soviet Romania, or even the Soviet Union. I could be earning more, of course, but that's not the fault of my employer, but of the government that strips me of (all in all about) 60-70% of all I earn (including indirect taxes and payments into the "social insurances").
A dentist or a manager of a small company is earning much more than me, and actually has a much better life (economically) than the highest GDR officials - and they extracted everything they were able to for themselves.

Communism always leads to poverty - it is in its core.

Still, the logic of that Social Justice Warrior is flawed. But so is your's (and you are so much closer to that SJW than you believe...).


Falls bei einem Quote kein Name steht, geht davon aus, dass der letzte Name immer noch gilt und es derselbe Post war!
Ich halte mich an meine Zitatregeln: beim ersten Zitat aus einem Post wird ein [" Quote= ]" gesetzt. Danach bis ein neuer Poster oder ein neuer Post kommt, nur ein "[ Quote "]. Falls ich zwischen Postern hin-und-herspringe, nenne ich den Poster auch häufiger.


Si vis pacem para bellum

"Alles, was der Mensch ist und was ihn über das Tier hinaushebt, dankt er der Vernunft. Warum sollte er gerade in der Politik auf den Gebrauch der Vernunft verzichten und sich dunkeln und unklaren Gefühlen und Impulsen anvertrauen?" (Ludwig von Mises)
06.12.2016 05:37
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #3
RE: A poor male is better off than a wealthy female, SJW "logic"

adder Wrote:
Still, the logic of that Social Justice Warrior is flawed. But so is your's (and you are so much closer to that SJW than you believe...).

SJWs for the most part are either clueless whinny liberals suffering from too much time or pseudo-marxists who have completely lost touch with working class politics & who had have adopted identity politics (a great trick by which elites profit greatly, because identity politics turns the poor against the poor, the middle class against middle class, middle class against the poor). SJWs are busy moaning about language, movie posters, commercial ads, video games, stand up comedians, and sitcoms. So sorry to once again disappoint you. I understand capitalism as the rule of those with capital. So if people are denied access to capital, they cannot be free. Talk to me about the free market when it will be free of rent seeking (in all its forms), and when natural monopolies will be used for the common good, then we'll see eye to eye. Until then.
As for communism. Every major communist leader theorized about what it means and whether or not his country reached it. In truth, practice killed them. The state became the unions. The state became the press. The state became everything. There was no debate. Any dissent was discouraged and repressed. Workers did not have democratic control over the means of production. The state had singular and arbitrary control. Top down, not bottom up. And those in charge were megalomaniacs who wanted to industrialize overnight, not caring about the repercussions of that (namely, artificial famines). So yeah, I'm not a Stalinist. I'm not an authoritarian. In the political compass, I score on the lower left in the green quadrant.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 06.12.2016 19:37 by Helsworth.

06.12.2016 19:07
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adder
Westwelt-Patriotin
**


Posts: 2,125
Words count: 573,433
Group: Premium
Joined: Aug2015
Status: Offline
Reputation: 50
Experience: 1342387
Glory Points: 160
Medals: 7

Post: #4
RE: A poor male is better off than a wealthy female, SJW "logic"

Helsworth Wrote:

adder Wrote:
Still, the logic of that Social Justice Warrior is flawed. But so is your's (and you are so much closer to that SJW than you believe...).

SJWs for the most part are either clueless whinny liberals suffering from too much time or pseudo-marxists who have completely lost touch with working class politics & who had have adopted identity politics (a great trick by which elites profit greatly, because identity politics turns the poor against the poor, the middle class against middle class, middle class against the poor). SJWs are busy moaning about language, movie posters, commercial ads, video games, stand up comedians, and sitcoms.


No objections here. There are a wee few activists out there that do not fit the SJW scheme - and mostly those are transpeople just fighting against real discriminations. But the media focus is on the drag queens of social justice, not the few people not fighting bullshit.

Quote:
I understand capitalism as the rule of those with capital.


That's not capitalism. It's corporatism. Yeah, that's pretty close and it says a lot with regard to the economic (and social) superiority of free market economy that even the flawed and castrated version of free market we have combined with corporatism and less democratic than they could state interventionalist governments is that much superior to socialist economy (i.e.: central planning, no right to own). But we do not have capitalism at the moment anywhere in the world - not even in the US. To gain it, we need to minimize the state, the government and the ability of corporations to influence regulations in a way that small and medium enterprises are not able to get into the market.
If we have done that - and we have capitalism and liberalism - then there is no rule of those who have money - but of those who have ideas that are prized by those who do not have them.

Quote:
So if people are denied access to capital, they cannot be free. Talk to me about the free market when it will be free of rent seeking (in all its forms), and when natural monopolies will be used for the common good, then we'll see eye to eye. Until then.


Rent seeking is not the problem. Really not. Natural monopoly might be one, but actually I do not even think that any kind of monopoly is a problem if the access to the market is not regulated in a way that prevents competitors to challenge the monopoly. If somebody has a monopoly on beer for example, and state regulations forbid anybody to brew beer who does not have access to people with a diploma from a certain university that does only educate enough people to fulfill the needs of the monopolist and in addition the state regulations require much money upfront and so on... then the beer monopolist is a problem. Otherwise: there will be somebody selling cheaper or brewing better beer. If nobody could sell cheaper/brew better than the monopolist, then actually the monopoly does not harm anybody.

Quote:
As for communism. Every major communist leader theorized about what it means and whether or not his country reached it. In truth, practice killed them. The state became the unions. The state became the press. The state became everything. There was no debate. Any dissent was discouraged and repressed. Workers did not have democratic control over the means of production. The state had singular and arbitrary control. Top down, not bottom up.


Well, that's inharent to communism/socialism. It is its core. Socialist ideology believes in the state and the state control. It is in its core an Etatist ideology. Anarchosyndicalism or whatever they call it now is a somewhat more non-etatist "socialism" - except that it is no socialism, but in essence a bit more unionism, equality in small groups.

Quote:
And those in charge were megalomaniacs who wanted to industrialize overnight, not caring about the repercussions of that (namely, artificial famines).


That's also inharent to socialism. The belief into a "leader" and fast industrialization [because the proletariat is only possible in industrialisation].

Quote:
So yeah, I'm not a Stalinist. I'm not an authoritarian. In the political compass, I score on the lower left in the green quadrant.


Maybe. You promote communism, you praised Castro. If that does not make you a fan of at least one authoritarian leader, I do not know what will suffice.
"green quadrant"... you mean "libertarian left"? That compass is flawed. There is no libertarian left except anarchosyndicalism. Freedom is universal and includes freedom to own something. In socialism (i.e. "economic left") the freedom to own something is taken away. The freedom to say something is taken away too, as are much other things.
So... I do not like that political compass as it does not capture the reality.


Falls bei einem Quote kein Name steht, geht davon aus, dass der letzte Name immer noch gilt und es derselbe Post war!
Ich halte mich an meine Zitatregeln: beim ersten Zitat aus einem Post wird ein [" Quote= ]" gesetzt. Danach bis ein neuer Poster oder ein neuer Post kommt, nur ein "[ Quote "]. Falls ich zwischen Postern hin-und-herspringe, nenne ich den Poster auch häufiger.


Si vis pacem para bellum

"Alles, was der Mensch ist und was ihn über das Tier hinaushebt, dankt er der Vernunft. Warum sollte er gerade in der Politik auf den Gebrauch der Vernunft verzichten und sich dunkeln und unklaren Gefühlen und Impulsen anvertrauen?" (Ludwig von Mises)
07.12.2016 06:19
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
yangusbeef
Unregistered


Post: #5
RE: A poor male is better off than a wealthy female, SJW "logic"

adder Wrote:

Helsworth Wrote:

adder Wrote:
Still, the logic of that Social Justice Warrior is flawed. But so is your's (and you are so much closer to that SJW than you believe...).

SJWs for the most part are either clueless whinny liberals suffering from too much time or pseudo-marxists who have completely lost touch with working class politics & who had have adopted identity politics (a great trick by which elites profit greatly, because identity politics turns the poor against the poor, the middle class against middle class, middle class against the poor). SJWs are busy moaning about language, movie posters, commercial ads, video games, stand up comedians, and sitcoms.


No objections here. There are a wee few activists out there that do not fit the SJW scheme - and mostly those are transpeople just fighting against real discriminations. But the media focus is on the drag queens of social justice, not the few people not fighting bullshit.

Quote:
I understand capitalism as the rule of those with capital.


That's not capitalism. It's corporatism. Yeah, that's pretty close and it says a lot with regard to the economic (and social) superiority of free market economy that even the flawed and castrated version of free market we have combined with corporatism and less democratic than they could state interventionalist governments is that much superior to socialist economy (i.e.: central planning, no right to own). But we do not have capitalism at the moment anywhere in the world - not even in the US. To gain it, we need to minimize the state, the government and the ability of corporations to influence regulations in a way that small and medium enterprises are not able to get into the market.
If we have done that - and we have capitalism and liberalism - then there is no rule of those who have money - but of those who have ideas that are prized by those who do not have them.

Quote:
So if people are denied access to capital, they cannot be free. Talk to me about the free market when it will be free of rent seeking (in all its forms), and when natural monopolies will be used for the common good, then we'll see eye to eye. Until then.


Rent seeking is not the problem. Really not. Natural monopoly might be one, but actually I do not even think that any kind of monopoly is a problem if the access to the market is not regulated in a way that prevents competitors to challenge the monopoly. If somebody has a monopoly on beer for example, and state regulations forbid anybody to brew beer who does not have access to people with a diploma from a certain university that does only educate enough people to fulfill the needs of the monopolist and in addition the state regulations require much money upfront and so on... then the beer monopolist is a problem. Otherwise: there will be somebody selling cheaper or brewing better beer. If nobody could sell cheaper/brew better than the monopolist, then actually the monopoly does not harm anybody.

Quote:
As for communism. Every major communist leader theorized about what it means and whether or not his country reached it. In truth, practice killed them. The state became the unions. The state became the press. The state became everything. There was no debate. Any dissent was discouraged and repressed. Workers did not have democratic control over the means of production. The state had singular and arbitrary control. Top down, not bottom up.


Well, that's inharent to communism/socialism. It is its core. Socialist ideology believes in the state and the state control. It is in its core an Etatist ideology. Anarchosyndicalism or whatever they call it now is a somewhat more non-etatist "socialism" - except that it is no socialism, but in essence a bit more unionism, equality in small groups.

Quote:
And those in charge were megalomaniacs who wanted to industrialize overnight, not caring about the repercussions of that (namely, artificial famines).


That's also inharent to socialism. The belief into a "leader" and fast industrialization [because the proletariat is only possible in industrialisation].

Quote:
So yeah, I'm not a Stalinist. I'm not an authoritarian. In the political compass, I score on the lower left in the green quadrant.


Maybe. You promote communism, you praised Castro. If that does not make you a fan of at least one authoritarian leader, I do not know what will suffice.
"green quadrant"... you mean "libertarian left"? That compass is flawed. There is no libertarian left except anarchosyndicalism. Freedom is universal and includes freedom to own something. In socialism (i.e. "economic left") the freedom to own something is taken away. The freedom to say something is taken away too, as are much other things.
So... I do not like that political compass as it does not capture the reality.


Adder, you can put in much more simply: he is confusing Plutocracy (ironically prevalent in Socialism, and in fact requires socialism) with Capitalism. His idea comes from the false assumption that intentions always equal results in regards to governing. In fact, on further analysis, almost never are the intentions of the government bureaucrat met by the institution. Likewise, the institution does more harm than good. This is because, unlike in video games, books, fantasy, etc, in real life direct control is impossible. The government institution will eventually, inevitably, become controlled by a person or group of people who pervert the original good-intended purpose of the institution. This is most prevalently seen with national banks. In theory, a national bank is a great and absolutely necessary. In practice, it typically fails in every purpose given to it, and then some. What socialists forget, in other words, is that _people_ not _machines_ or _angels_ make up the government. Likewise, Socialism is great in theory but will always fail in practice, relative to what is achieved with Free Market Capitalism. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

07.12.2016 22:57
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Debunking alpha-male and beta-male bullshit Helsworth 12 6,441 03.01.2014 21:03
Last Post: TriniSary7
Shy Charlie Sheen, poor guy Malone 4 1,167 12.01.2011 20:38
Last Post: Helsworth
  USD Declaration of wealthy charitable cause hot ecbiz21 1 1,184 20.06.2010 10:16
Last Post: Unkas

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: